View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Winston's New Conspiracy Report - Moon Hoax, JFK, 9/11

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Winston's New Conspiracy Report - Moon Hoax, JFK, 9/11

Postby Scepcop » 21 Nov 2012, 05:13

Hi all,
I decided to make use of all the years of research I've done on conspiracies. So I wrote this big report on conspiracies with 50+ conspiracy arguments for three major events in US history - The Apollo Moon Landings, JFK Assassination and 9/11. It contains many logical arguments that are concise yet comprehensive. It took about a week to write and revise. Check out what I've put together so far here:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Conspiracies.htm

Let me know what you think. Or if there are any arguments that I forgot to add. I will add more arguments and important details as I find them, so this may be an ongoing project.

I haven't decided whether to put images in it or not. Or whether to divide it up into three subpages rather than put them all on one. What do you think?

Thanks,
Winston
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






Re: New! My Big Report on Conspiracies - Moon Landing, JFK,

Postby Misha » 21 Nov 2012, 05:54

Hi Winston,

Kudos. That's a lot of work. Give me some time to look over it. I perused it and found I am in agreement with your analysis. However, again, I need to spend some time with it.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: New! My Big Report on Conspiracies - Moon Landing, JFK,

Postby Misha » 21 Nov 2012, 06:35

Hi Winston and members,

Upon looking at Winston's thesis and how he has analyzed three controversial events in American history. I decided to find a passage I had read years ago in Thomas Friedman's excellent book - "From Beirut to Jerusalem." I think this Bedouin legend best illustrates why the United States is in the mess it is today:

There is an old Bedouin legend that goes like this: an elderly leader thought that by eating turkey he could restore his virility. So he bought a turkey, kept it by his tent and stuffed it with food every day. One day someone stole his turkey. The Bedouin elder called his sons together and told them: "Boys, we are in great danger. Someone has stolen my turkey."

"Father," the sons answered, "what do you need a turkey for?"

"Never mind," he answered, "just get me back my turkey." But the sons ignored him and a month later someone stole the old man's camel. "What should we do?" the sons asked. "Find my turkey," said the father.

But the sons did nothing, and a few weeks later the man's daughter was raped. The father said to his sons: "It is all because of the turkey. When they saw that they could take my turkey, we lost everything."
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: New! My Big Report on Conspiracies - Moon Landing, JFK,

Postby really? » 22 Nov 2012, 21:22

Misha wrote:Hi Winston,

Kudos. That's a lot of work. Give me some time to look over it. I perused it and found I am in agreement with your analysis. However, again, I need to spend some time with it.


With the possible exception of JFK's assassination, do you even remotely recognize Winston is wrong in his crack analysis of the Moon landings and 9/11 ?
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: New! My Big Report on Conspiracies - Moon Landing, JFK,

Postby SydneyPSIder » 25 Nov 2012, 10:40

really? wrote:
Misha wrote:Hi Winston,

Kudos. That's a lot of work. Give me some time to look over it. I perused it and found I am in agreement with your analysis. However, again, I need to spend some time with it.


With the possible exception of JFK's assassination, do you even remotely recognize Winston is wrong in his crack analysis of the Moon landings and 9/11 ?


I think he's pretty much bang on, except for things that just can't be known about how the fakery was conducted.

e.g.

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2363478

Image

Image

http://letsrollforums.com/9-11-photos-v ... 362p7.html

Image

Image

All 'inconvenient truths', eh?

(plus footage of overlaid scenes of actors where one guy's arm passes through another guy's body as a couple of guys nonchalantly stroll away from the WTC towers looking like they're agreeing to have a coffee when another gesticulating guy's arm passes through one of their bodies. Just clip art footage strung together. Interestingly, google key words just don't bring this video up when I need it -- yet I was watching it a couple of days ago.)

Even given the compelling evidence of video and still fakery throughout Apollo and 9/11, I suspect the pseudoscep pope and cardinals here will still refuse to look through the telescope.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: New! My Big Report on Conspiracies - Moon Hoax, JFK, 9/1

Postby Arouet » 25 Nov 2012, 12:16

You think his argument that we had the technology to go to the moon in 1969 but not today is bang on?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: New! My Big Report on Conspiracies - Moon Hoax, JFK, 9/1

Postby SydneyPSIder » 25 Nov 2012, 16:11

Arouet wrote:You think his argument that we had the technology to go to the moon in 1969 but not today is bang on?


He's not making that argument, he is ironically saying that we are being asked to believe that our technology today is 600 times worse than then, and that they could safely get through van Allen radiation belts then with tinfoil craft that NASA experts baulk at today for safety reasons. And all this with no accidents and no health problems on return, and with complete accuracy, despite the number of rocket accidents before and after the Apollo program.

I don't accept his '600 times' as a multiplier argument exactly, of course physics tells us that in space once you get going there is nothing to stop you, but I have seen arguments elsewhere that suggest the Saturn V rocket was nowhere near powerful enough to quickly escape the earth's gravitational field with sufficient fuel to propel the launch module to the moon within a couple of days at such high speed. Never mind dodging space junk on the way. In other words, the Saturn V rocket's engine power was greatly overstated for propaganda purposes. One account points out that the flame type from the Saturn V was more for show, that it should not be using that type of fuel, etc.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: New! My Big Report on Conspiracies - Moon Hoax, JFK, 9/1

Postby really? » 26 Nov 2012, 07:53

SydneyPSIder wrote:
Arouet wrote:You think his argument that we had the technology to go to the moon in 1969 but not today is bang on?


He's not making that argument, he is ironically saying that we are being asked to believe that our technology today is 600 times worse than then, and that they could safely get through van Allen radiation belts then with tinfoil craft that NASA experts baulk at today for safety reasons. And all this with no accidents and no health problems on return, and with complete accuracy, despite the number of rocket accidents before and after the Apollo program.

I don't accept his '600 times' as a multiplier argument exactly, of course physics tells us that in space once you get going there is nothing to stop you,l the launch but I have seen arguments elsewhere that suggest the Saturn V rocket was nowhere near powerful enough to quickly escape the earth's gravitational field with sufficient fuel to propemodule to the moon within a couple of days at such high speed. Never mind dodging space junk on the way. In other words, the Saturn V rocket's engine power was greatly overstated for propaganda purposes. One account points out that the flame type from the Saturn V was more for show, that it should not be using that type of fuel, etc.


What idiot(s) says this. There was far less space junk 30 and 40 years ago then there is now.
Consider the lunar modules which traversed the near Earth space in about a day and presented a smaller target than does the international space station which has orbited the Earth for years has remained relatively unscathed.

How big is the international space station ?
Module Length: 167.3 feet (51 meters)
Truss Length: 357.5 feet (109 meters)
Solar Array Length: 239.4 feet (73 meters)
Odometer reading 1.6 billion miles at the time of it's 10th anniversary in 2010. Number of orbits at that time 57,361.

How big is a saturn rocket ?
The Saturn V rocket was 110.6 m (363 ft) high.
It had a maximum diameter of 10.1 m (33 ft).
More info on the Saturn rocket.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/history/apo ... ssion.html
As you can see each part of this rocket gets smaller as each part is jettisoned presenting a smaller target in a short period of time.

Some photos not of space junk for you to look at.
http://www.ibtimes.com/nasa-orbiter-ima ... tos-708413
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: New! My Big Report on Conspiracies - Moon Landing, JFK,

Postby really? » 26 Nov 2012, 12:47

Misha wrote:Hi Winston,

Kudos. That's a lot of work. Give me some time to look over it. I perused it and found I am in agreement with your analysis. However, again, I need to spend some time with it.


really? wrote:With the possible exception of JFK's assassination, do you even remotely recognize Winston is wrong in his crack analysis of the Moon landings and 9/11 ?


SydneyPSIder wrote:I think he's pretty much bang on, except for things that just can't be known about how the fakery was conducted.

e.g.

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2363478

Image

Image

http://letsrollforums.com/9-11-photos-v ... 362p7.html

Image

Image

All 'inconvenient truths', eh?

(plus footage of overlaid scenes of actors where one guy's arm passes through another guy's body as a couple of guys nonchalantly stroll away from the WTC towers looking like they're agreeing to have a coffee when another gesticulating guy's arm passes through one of their bodies. Just clip art footage strung together. Interestingly, google key words just don't bring this video up when I need it -- yet I was watching it a couple of days ago.)

Even given the compelling evidence of video and still fakery throughout Apollo and 9/11, I suspect the pseudoscep pope and cardinals here will still refuse to look through the telescope.



Are you implying that since you found this vid and now can't find it again Google said to themselves; uh-oh SydneyPSIder caught on to us being part of the conspiracy so we better remove the video. Is that what you are implying by using the word interesting ? There's nothing interesting about not finding something you found before. It's happened to me. Why as a matter of fact Google sometimes has trouble finding the site Skeptiko. All all just more silliness.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: New! My Big Report on Conspiracies - Moon Landing, JFK,

Postby SydneyPSIder » 26 Nov 2012, 13:40

really? wrote:Are you implying that since you found this vid and now can't find it again Google said to themselves; uh-oh SydneyPSIder caught on to us being part of the conspiracy so we better remove the video. Is that what you are implying by using the word interesting ? There's nothing interesting about not finding something you found before. It's happened to me. Why as a matter of fact Google sometimes has trouble finding the site Skeptiko. All all just more silliness.


No, you idiot, I mean I'm surprised that putting in a string of matching keywords to the text I read the other day returns nothing, and I have no idea why. It's on one of the main analysis sites 'somewhere'. The ultimate purpose of google is that you can hopefully bring things back via a few relevant keywords after it's crawled your site. Further, IE9's history feature keeps breaking on my machine, meaning I can't follow my own history, thanks very much Bill Gates for that flaky piece of software. As an aside, 3 pedantic nit-picking nit-wit pseudosceps on this site is clearly more than enough.

I note this is an interesting diversion and you don't want to discuss the fakery of videos and stills from 9/11 and Apollo.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: New! My Big Report on Conspiracies - Moon Hoax, JFK, 9/1

Postby SydneyPSIder » 26 Nov 2012, 14:49

really? wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:
He's not making that argument, he is ironically saying that we are being asked to believe that our technology today is 600 times worse than then, and that they could safely get through van Allen radiation belts then with tinfoil craft that NASA experts baulk at today for safety reasons. And all this with no accidents and no health problems on return, and with complete accuracy, despite the number of rocket accidents before and after the Apollo program.

I don't accept his '600 times' as a multiplier argument exactly, of course physics tells us that in space once you get going there is nothing to stop you,l the launch but I have seen arguments elsewhere that suggest the Saturn V rocket was nowhere near powerful enough to quickly escape the earth's gravitational field with sufficient fuel to propemodule to the moon within a couple of days at such high speed. Never mind dodging space junk on the way. In other words, the Saturn V rocket's engine power was greatly overstated for propaganda purposes. One account points out that the flame type from the Saturn V was more for show, that it should not be using that type of fuel, etc.


What idiot(s) says this. There was far less space junk 30 and 40 years ago then there is now.
Consider the lunar modules which traversed the near Earth space in about a day and presented a smaller target than does the international space station which has orbited the Earth for years has remained relatively unscathed.

How big is the international space station ?
Module Length: 167.3 feet (51 meters)
Truss Length: 357.5 feet (109 meters)
Solar Array Length: 239.4 feet (73 meters)
Odometer reading 1.6 billion miles at the time of it's 10th anniversary in 2010. Number of orbits at that time 57,361.

How big is a saturn rocket ?
The Saturn V rocket was 110.6 m (363 ft) high.
It had a maximum diameter of 10.1 m (33 ft).
More info on the Saturn rocket.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/history/apo ... ssion.html
As you can see each part of this rocket gets smaller as each part is jettisoned presenting a smaller target in a short period of time.

Some photos not of space junk for you to look at.
http://www.ibtimes.com/nasa-orbiter-ima ... tos-708413


Sorry, not 'space junk' in the sense of man-made orbiting stuff, but various sized rocks floating around in space travelling at high speed, i.e. the earth is protected by and large by the atmosphere, but hundred, if not thousands, of rocks of various sizes are drawn into the earth's gravity field every day, and are largely consumed in the atmosphere. Once in a while a really big chunk will get through and hit the earth, e.g. the meteor that exploded near the Tunguska River in Russia in 1908, or the comet or asteroid sized thing that allegedly wiped out the dinosaurs. The Apollo crews were supposedly hurtling through space at a massive speed possibly hitting items also travelling at massive speed in almost any direction, in a tinfoil apparatus -- luckily they all somehow survived unscathed! All 6 times. And micro-meteorites also strike the moon regularly at speeds of up to 20,000 mph, meaning an astronaut that got in their way would be pretty well atomised immediately -- that is several hundred times faster than a bullet. Despite this, all the astronauts seem remarkably upbeat and devil-may-care as they hopped about on the moon and pulled wheelies in their rover that would have tipped over in the gravity when you do the calculations, etc. It hardly seems as though at every minute of their sojourn they were liable to be hit with a lethal meteorite. The only time they seem glum and miserable and depressed about the whole thing is on their return to press conferences, where they looked incredibly guilty and down-in-the-mouth, after supposedly completing an epic history-making voyage completely unscathed, exactly like the 5 crews that followed -- 5 crews always made up of completely different people each time, funny that previous test pilot experience counted for nothing in those safe-as-houses Apollo missions! And they couldn't explain the lack of stars in their photos and footage either, although they come up clearly in photos from unmanned probes that have landed there -- why would that be? Can you explain that particular anomaly, really?? Mike Collins had a go at answering in the press conference, saying 'he couldn't see any either' -- BUT HE WAS MEANT TO BE ORBITING IN SPACE AROUND THE MOON, NOT STANDING ON ITS SURFACE! Somehow he managed to answer for the others nonetheless. It's there on youtube with the original footage, but somehow NASA got the transcript wrong and attributed the comment to Buzz Aldrin instead -- silly clerical mistake, no?

You may have noticed in pics of the moon that it's riddled with large and small craters, and its gravity regularly pulls in high speed particles with no atmosphere to protect the surface and anything on it, like an alleged human being in a space suit.

So really?, your silly objections have been hit out of the park once again. Thanks for the pointless research, hope you had a good time collecting it. What a time-waster you really are, really?

Below is an article on a recent meteoritic object that hit the ISS -- which is protected by 4 sheets of glass and kevlar shielding, unlike the tinfoil Apollo craft. You see, it's easier to haul a lot of weight and building materials up a bit at a time for assembly in space with a series of rockets, much harder to propel a massively heavy and massively protected craft straight to the moon in one hit on a Saturn V rocket, as it doesn't have the power -- lucky the Apollo module was mostly cardboard and tinfoil!!! Wernher von Braun and others made comments to that effect prior to the JFK announcement, and strangely altered their view of physics after going on to the NASA payroll, and started subscribing to a form of alternative 'Hollywood physics' which is the sort of physics you see in B grade Hollywood movies about space and other planets and moons.

Meteor strike on ISS is reminder of cosmic hazard

By Paul Sutherland 18 June 2012
(Sen) - Everyone knows what a pain it is when you get a chip on your car's windshield from a bit of flying grit. But on Earth it is usually fairly easy to call someone in to repair it.

NASA are currently evaluating a similar spot of damage to one of the viewing windows on the International Space Station to see if that needs to be replaced.

The chip that left a visible scar on the outer pane was caused by a tiny meteoroid or scrap of space debris travelling many times faster than a bullet. It hit one of seven panes in the orbiting outpost's European-built Cupola - the space equivalent to a conservatory.

This particular impact is not thought to put the six astronauts on board in any danger. But it is a reminder that space is a dangerous place.

Astronauts aboard the ISS use the zone as a place to relax and watch the views of Earth and sky. It has provided some stunning images and videos recently of aurora displays and other spectacles including the recent Transit of Venus.

A protective shutter was quickly closed over the damaged window, which has four layers of glass. The outer pane on the Cupola, which was carried into orbit by space shuttle Endeavour in February 2010, can only be replaced with a spacewalk.

If a similar-sized piece of debris had hit an astronaut on a spacewalk, the consequences may have been fatal.

Dr Lucy Rogers, space debris expertThe astronauts currently on the ISS - Commander Oleg Kononenko and Flight Engineers Sergei Revin, Gennady Padalka, Joe Acaba, Don Pettit, and Andre Kuipers - took photos of the impact scar on Window Two of the Cupola and beamed them to mission control for analysis by experts.

NASA are monitoring the orbits of the thousands of larger pieces of space junk left by satellite collisions and "star wars" tests in space. But smaller fragments plus natural meteoroid fragments flying through space are a constant hazard.

Space debris expert Dr Lucy Rogers told Sen: "Space is full of tiny pieces of debris - both man-made and natural. It is estimated that there are hundreds of thousands of pieces of space debris, smaller than a cherry, travelling at speeds of up to 17,500 mph (28,000 kph).

"The space station is protected in many ways from damage by these pieces of debris. The windows of the ISS cupola are made from fused silica and borosilicate glass and are therefore much more resilient than normal windows on Earth. However, a small piece of space debris can still cause it to chip, in the same way a car windshield will chip if hit by a small stone on the motorway.

"Any chips that are seen on the cupola are reported directly to NASA, and the shutters of the orbital Debris Protection System (MDPS) on the Cupola will close. These shutters are made from aluminium and Kevlar/Nextel sheets, and will protect the astronauts should the pane of glass fail. NASA will carry out extensive investigations to ensure the integrity of the glass, before allowing the shutter to be opened again."


Dr Rogers added: "There are equations used to predict penetration depth of projectiles - these can be used to calculate the size and speed of the debris that hit the window. The scientists will also be interested to see if they can work out what it was that hit the window - was it a broken part of another satellite, or was it small natural meteoroid?

"This type of data helps the scientists and engineers calculate the probability of future micro-meteoroids and orbital debris (MMOD) strikes, and so precautions and safety measures can be taken to protect both astronauts and spacecraft. If a similar sized piece of debris had hit an astronaut on a spacewalk, the consequences may have been fatal."

http://www.sen.com/News/meteor-strike-o ... azard.html


So once again, really?, you're absolutely off-track and dead wrong, but thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify the details of your mistake and add some more information on the risks of space travel outside the atmosphere and on airless rocky moons whose gravity will pull in extremely fast-travelling meteors all the time.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 26 Nov 2012, 21:28, edited 2 times in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: New! My Big Report on Conspiracies - Moon Hoax, JFK, 9/1

Postby SydneyPSIder » 26 Nov 2012, 15:00

Some more articles on that:

Meteorite damage found on space station

11:05 07 June 2007 by New Scientist Space and AFP
A mini-meteorite has left a bullet-sized hole in a module of the International Space Station (ISS), but the three-person US-Russian team of astronauts inside are not in danger, a Russian official said on Wednesday.

The puncture, in an outer pumping component on the module, was detected in the Zaria module of the station during a spacewalk by the two Russian cosmonauts on board, the spokesman for the Russian space agency, Vladimir Solovyev, said. Photos of the hole have been sent back to Earth for study.

It is the first time a meteorite hole has been found so close to the crew's quarters on the ISS, although several holes have been observed on the big solar panels that spread out from the station.

Space debris, either natural or from parts of rockets and satellites, represents a serious danger to the ISS and its occupants, and the cosmonauts were installing new debris shielding on this spacewalk.

Fyodor Yurchikin and Oleg Kotov, who made their six-hour excursion on Wednesday, are to be joined on the ISS by US astronaut Sunita Williams at the weekend.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... ation.html


plus:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/spac ... ation.html
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: New! My Big Report on Conspiracies - Moon Hoax, JFK, 9/1

Postby Scepcop » 26 Nov 2012, 18:20

Update:

I've expanded my report and added many more sections and arguments. I've also created a table of contents of all the arguments and sections too so you can see an overview of them. Here is the new version.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Conspiracies.htm

Feel free to share this page with others. I've also changed the title of the report to:

The Case for Conspiracy in the Apollo Moon Hoax, JFK Assassination and 9/11 Attacks:
60+ Logical Arguments Debunking the Official Stories


Do you think that sounds better, or does this:

Debunking the Official Stories of the Apollo Moon Landing, JFK Assassination and 9/11 Attacks:
60+ Logical Arguments Proving a Conspiracy
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: New! My Big Report on Conspiracies - Moon Hoax, JFK, 9/1

Postby Scepcop » 26 Nov 2012, 18:37

Arouet wrote:You think his argument that we had the technology to go to the moon in 1969 but not today is bang on?


Of course it is. That is a strong argument against the moon landings. It's common sense. You skeptics are too ingrained in your religious faith in the moon landings, that you can't see such an obvious things clearly. I've also added this related strong argument:

– Fact: Did you know that so far, 14 astronauts have died in Space Shuttle missions that were 200 miles above the Earth, yet during the Apollo program NASA allegedly sent astronauts six times to the moon, 240,000 miles and back, with no loss of life? In other words: 200 miles = 14 casualties, 240,000 miles = 0 casualties. Do you buy that? Can you fathom the enormous difference between 200 and 240,000 and how big of a stretch it is?

What’s more, NASA could not even keep astronauts safe on Earth. During a test simulation on the launch pad for Apollo One in 1967, three astronauts died during a fire that engulfed the capsule and somehow locked them inside, which was never explained and seemed to be the result of foul play. Whatever the case, if NASA couldn’t even keep astronauts safe on Earth during a test simulation inside a stationary capsule that wasn’t even moving, then how could it keep them safe 240,000 miles away on the moon during a real mission?

To give you an idea of the proportions we are talking about, picture this: The Earth is 8,000 miles in diameter and the moon is 240,000 miles away. That means that you’d have to line up 30 Earth globes to equal the distance to the moon (since 8,000 x 30 = 240,000). What this means is that in 1969, NASA could send men the distance of 30 Earth globes, but today, it can only send humans barely above the Earth. If you have a model globe in your home, 400 miles would be about an inch above it.

(Here is that first argument again, spelled out and revised)

– Fact: Did you know that since the Apollo Moon Missions in 1969-72, which sent astronauts 240,000 miles to the moon and back six times, NO ONE has ever gone 400 miles above the Earth? Even the Space Shuttle missions have gone below that and remained well under 400 miles.

Today, NASA does not have the technology to go higher than 400 miles above Earth, and has indirectly admitted it in a number of ways, by their actions and words. In a press release, NASA stated that the Van Allen Radiation Belts that surround the Earth are too dangerous to send humans through and is trying to figure out how to solve this problem. See here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/ ... 7820080331

This doesn’t make any sense given that none of the astronauts on the six Apollo missions allegedly passed the radiation belts with no problem and no sickness! What this means is that incredibly, NASA was able to send men 600 times farther in 1969 than it can today! How inexplicable is that? Have you ever heard of technology going backward by such an extreme magnitude?! It’s totally illogical and nonsensical.

Listen to this interview with Bart Sibrel. It's his best. Too bad it's not on YouTube yet. I ought to post it on there.

http://www.erichufschmid.net/Interview- ... ep2006.mp3
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: New! My Big Report on Conspiracies - Moon Landing, JFK,

Postby Scepcop » 26 Nov 2012, 18:56

really? wrote:
Misha wrote:Hi Winston,

Kudos. That's a lot of work. Give me some time to look over it. I perused it and found I am in agreement with your analysis. However, again, I need to spend some time with it.


With the possible exception of JFK's assassination, do you even remotely recognize Winston is wrong in his crack analysis of the Moon landings and 9/11 ?


Are you saying that you don't accept the Warren Commission's verdict of a lone nut assassin with no motive other than wanting to become famous? I thought you skeptics always side with the official version of everything. It's your gospel right?

Btw, here is a damning admission I found from NASA's flight director.

NASA had complete control over the televised coverage feed. There was no independent corroboration of it. The people at Mission Control could only see what was on their screens, and as you know, anything can be produced on a computer screen – including a pre-recorded simulation of the mission. In fact, in the documentary “Failure Is Not An Option”, Apollo Flight Director Gene Kranz was quoted as saying: “The simulations were so real that no controller could discern the difference between the training and the real mission.” In other words, the personnel at Mission Control cannot tell the difference between a simulation and real mission. That's quite a bold and revealing statement coming from the man in charge of Mission Control.

Second, large numbers of people can keep a secret. For example, the Manhattan Project that developed the Atomic Bomb involved over 100,000 people who all kept it a secret before it was publicized. And the Secret Soviet Space program, which has now been declassified, involved thousands of people who all kept it a secret as well. And as you might know, the CIA and NSA contain thousands of operatives and staff who all keep their agency's activities a secret. Large numbers of people can be controlled by fear of imprisonment, death, and guilt for betraying their associates. History has proven this, so it is possible.

Even groups of civilians have been known to lie in collusion. For example, in 1957 Time Magazine had on its cover "The Smartest Man in America", who was the latest winner of the most popular TV trivia game show at that time. It was later uncovered that the contestant had been receiving the answers in advance from the show's producers because he was widely loved by the viewers. In fact, during a grand jury investigation, 120 contestants and staff even swore on the Bible that the show was not rigged. Most later recanted, and it is now known that they all lied. So, if all these people were willing to lie to cover up something as simple as a game show, then it is plausible that people would do the same under government orders, alleged interests of national security, threat of punishment, helping to cover for their associates, or in the interests of their career and income.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Next

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron